Slashdot Mirror
California Blocks RFID Implants In Workers
InternetVoting writes "California has passed a bill banning companies from requiring employees to have RFID chips surgically implanted. Already one company has been licensed by the federal government, implanting more than 2000 people. At least one other company — CityWatcher.com, a Cincinnati video surveillance company — already required RFID implants in some employees. 'State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) proposed the measure after at least one company began marketing radio frequency identification devices for use in humans. "RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," Simitian said. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy.'"
a state legislature that "gets" it...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Good for California!
(One of the few times I might agree with the Cali govt.)
So long as they do not start flashing red.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Because RFID would make that a lot easier.
How about some GENERAL legislation saying that companies cannot require ANYTHING (not just RFID chips) to be implanted in their employee's body's.
Although not quite as knee jerk as some laws (like the various "Amber laws"), why oh why can't legislators for once think about & debate an idea for several weeks or months and get it right?
I wouldn't want to be involuntarily tagged, but I am fine doing it my self
I was just reading another article on Slashdot about Circuit City gestapo tactics, and thought that it is only a matter of time before large monopolistic retailers require their customers to be implanted with RFID tags.
Tin Foil hat alert? Maybe, maybe not.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
The only job that should require surgery are managerial. How else are they going to get the stick up there?
if your employer just shoots you from a helicopter with a tranquilizer dart, and then staples the chip to your ear while you're still groggy?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
What happens when you decide to leave a company, I guess they have to remove the implant?
You work two jobs and you end up getting double implants? I wouldn't want this.
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
I do not perceive this as happening anytime soon. Fortunately, the Orwellian future isn't here...yet.
As future generations find it to be a useful thing to do, the law will most certainly be declared obsolete and stricken as easily as it was passed.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ah, another victim of the "why are nerds libertarian" bashfest ;)
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I am no Libertarian, but surely if people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be RFID'd then that's their problem?
Can I use RFID to track cars around town? How hard would it be to stick one of these things in someone without their knowing? Are they small enough to put in food for a limited time use (until they get shitted out)? How about just clipping them on to a wallet, purse of pair of shoes? What is the range and how much does it cost to set up a system?
There are two kinds of libertarians: the ones who recognize only "the government" as a source of oppressive force, and those who realize that any group may become sufficiently powerful as to be able to prevent free exercise of one's natural rights. (The wikipedia article splits libertarians into different subsets, but I believe that my basis here is complete, if not orthogonal.)
Unfortunately, the former group gets much more press than the latter, and has largely gotten the terminology to refer only to them even among liberty dorks like us. The former group (among many other bizarre positions) would object strongly to a national credit rating system that dictated where and how you could live if it was run by the government, but have no objection against the credit system we have today simply because its officials are unelected. At the risk of igniting a flame war, Noam Chomsky's writings on anarchism should be read by libertarians or simply "people interested in freedom" just as much as Ayn Rand's.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Sorry, but the free market will prevent that from ever happening. If company X requires me to have an RFID to shop there, I'll just shop at company Y. And there will always be a company Y, because there will always be a segment of the population not willing to have RFID implants. The free market will always find a way. (Apologies to Jeff Goldblum and Jurassic Park.)
It could happen the day 95% of their customers agree that they have no problem getting voluntarily implanted.
To help, they could offer a 10% discount to all their loyal implanted customers to start with and when almost all their customers are implanted, require it to get into the store ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
"if they dont want to be tagged, they can just quit and go work for another company."
Im a christian, And i should hope any other person who considers themselves a christian would see this stuff for what it really is. Just another step toward a mark of the beast system.
Revelation 13:16-17 (King James Version)
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Ah, another victim of the "why are nerds libertarian" bashfest ;)
I actually don't have it in for libertarians, but the limits of my faith in markets get tested in scenarios like this one. I admit to poking the hornet's nest.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I've watched Newsies enough times to know that if they don't like what their corporation is doing, they can strike. I do find it ridiculous that a company would make their employees get RFID chips, but if the employee is stupid enough to work there...
On the other hand, I can't think of a legitimate use of an RFID tag for a human. It's range isn't far enough to be useful for rescue workers who were trapped or searching for trapped people. Perhaps as an enhanced version of dog tags, but even then it seems overboard. Any need for identification is better filled with biometrics.
whether you are tagged or not.
4 [google.com] 646406827 [google.com]
which doesn't mean much to most of US. butt, if you are a greed/fear/ego based minion of unprecedented evile, things might seem to be getting just a little warm right now?
infactdead corepirate nazis still WAY off track
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01, @09:35AM (#20433195)
it's only a matter of time/space/circumstance.
previous post:
mynuts won 'off t(r)opic'???
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, @10:22AM (#20411119)
eye gas you could call this 'weather'?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=800488111
be careful, the whack(off)job in the next compartment may be a high RANKing corepirate nazi official.
previous post:
whoreabull corepirate nazi felons planning trips
(Score: mynuts won, robbIE's 'secret' censorship score)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, @12:13PM (#20072457)
in orbit perhaps? we wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of the naykid furor at this power point.
better days ahead?
as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD felons are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.
from previous post: many demand nazi execrable stop abusing US
we the peepoles?
how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.
all they (the felonious execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?
for many of US, the only way out is up.
don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.
'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.
some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.
it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....
as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.
concern about the course of events that will occur should the ife0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.
'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
"Invasion of privacy" is misleading.
It's only about privacy in a euphemistic way, it's about sovereignty of ones body.
If it is forbidden on "privacy" grounds, then the privacy grounds can be addressed, resolved, objection removed and then can become a requirement for work/access-to-services etc.
It should be forbidden because the majority of the population said "No" without having to give a reason.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
There are two kinds of libertarians [wikipedia.org]: the ones who recognize only "the government" as a source of oppressive force, and those who realize that any group may become sufficiently powerful as to be able to prevent free exercise of one's natural rights.
I obviously have been hanging out in the wrong circles, because I hadn't previously heard about this distinction. That's the problem with broad "ism" labels. They're fairly easily co-opted.
Thanks for the info.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This one, I don't get - at all. I can conjure up no possible positive reason for the implanting of RFID tags in the human body. It is the ultimate intrusion, both figuratively and physically.
Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem.What a maroon. Why the hell is it a problem to preemptively act against activity that one doesn't like the look of? Have we got to the point that a technology has to become a *problem* before we can thoughtfully act to restrict or focus its use?
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
To ban FORCED implants on workers != ban on voluntary implants
Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem. "It sounded like it was a solution looking for a problem," Margett said. "It didn't seem like it was necessary."
Maybe if it was tatooing barcodes on people's arms instead of RFID chips, then they'll see the problem.
When you have finished this cup of coffee your adventure will begin again.
If you're referring to the article about the guy who idiotically refused to provide his receipt to the Circuit City security guy, and you're referring to THAT as "gestapo tactics", then yes... your every word comes wrapped in the shiny stuff.
Actually, your flip "simply because its officials are unelected" isn't really true. The type of libertarian you refer to would say that all businesses/organizations in a free market are elected, directly, when you choose to give them your money in return for whatever it is that they promise to do for you.
Now.. don't get me wrong.. I don't agree with that. But a fundamental libertarian premise is that the free market is a robust construction most able to deal with shifting needs of a society, while government is simply hierarchy that can defend its own interests even when those interests are against those of the overall market.
That is, business is overthrown when you stop paying them. Government... well, it can take a good bit more than that.
I think the solution, personally, is to improve governmental constructs then, which is why I am not a libertarian anymore.
I hope they work better than the RF tags at the library where I work. I saw one of those, applied inside the cover of a paperback that burned through the front and scorched several pages into it.
Fortunately, the Orwellian future isn't here...yet.
If you wait until the Orwellian future is here then it will be too late to do anything about it.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Well, no. Roman citizens could enter into a contract making them gladiators. So no, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Again, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I find this trend somewhat short-sighted. RFID of course has many uses, but it is known to have several vulnerabilities when used for security purposes. I can imagine what some of them are, but I'm not a security researcher so I won't speculate. However, the reliance specifically on surgically embedded RFID chips may fall quite easily into the trap laid by "security by difficulty."
Most of us agree that "security by obscurity" is a bad thing. Relying on closed code and hidden private keys (cough DRM cough) to ensure security just doesn't work well in the end. However, there is a tendency to have more faith in security which relies entirely on the difficulty of achieving some goal. In the case of mechanical locks, this is quite obvious and locks have been designed this way for centuries, the level of "difficulty" based on current technological knowledge and the known level of skill of lock pickers.
In software, we see "difficulty" being important for public-key encryption, which is the corner stone of many cryptographic paradigms. The difficulty, in this case, is finding a pair of primes which can be multiplied to get the private key. However, in this case we can use mathematics to formally identify the time required, according to current technology, to perform this calculation. Thus, we can have some very good, provable assurance that a particular algorithm won't be broken by brute force methods. (Until the next technological breakthrough... quantum cryptography? But that, we are told, is assuredly still far in the future..)
Now, here we have a tendency to embed an identification chip in a person, so that you can be sure that this person is who they say they are. After all, once a chip is embedded surgically, there's no way it can be wrong, right?
Unfortunately this logic is way too dependent on the current idea that surgery is a difficult thing. Already there exist plastic surgeries that take less than a week to recover from. Even the procedure in question I'm sure is quite minor and takes no time at all. So how does embedding a chip in someone add to the sense of security? It's perfectly imaginable to me that in the near future there will be devices which can easily inject such chips into the skin or remove them without requiring a doctor present at all.
So that is why I fail to understand this idea. Even after considering the man-in-the-middle attacks and several other ways to break RFID security, I cannot see that relying in surgical implantation will help much in terms of security. You may as well just get a magnetic card reader so that employees can use their ID cards to get in, and be done with it. Relying on surgery or even fingerprints/retina identification will only add to a false sense of security, as any of these can be fooled. And yes, someone eager enough to break into a high-tech workplace to steal data is going to be be smart enough to have thought of several ways to do it before breakfast.
I'm afraid that when it comes to physical security, people are still better at doing it than machines, and I believe this will be the case for some time.
To help, they could offer a 10% discount to all their loyal implanted customers to start with and when almost all their customers are implanted, require it to get into the store ;-)
They already do that in some ways. Its called a store loyalty card.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, but that's a strange notion of "election". Most "elections" that distributed significantly different voting powers to people would not be considered such!
The idol of the free market is relatively new in libertarian thought (modulo the terminology battles again, of course.) Libertarians you can historically connect with the strands today were around well before robust theories of the free market. I think if you time-translated some of the "founding fathers" you'd find they considered the free market a powerful tool, not a good in itself.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
They would not support this kind of 'efficiency'. I'm afraid that in the world, the excuse of using technology because "it's just easier this way" has in fact lead to atrocities that will be remembered for a thousand years.
It starts out as a labor issue and they tell you it's ok because you don't have to work there. Then they give them to all convicts. Then mental patients, then the ex-sex offenders, then bullshit pot bust people, then the DUIs, then the green card holders then it becomes an automatic step in the arrest process then your car insurance needs it then your health insurance then your bank and still they keep telling you that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. And if you don't want to use a bank no one is making you. Then everyone in the armed forces gets one then everyone on the public service payroll then all the welfare recipients, then all the school children, then everyone working for a company that has any government contract, then any passport holder. And whoever's left is corralled into special camps. Trust me, I've seen this before.
Many of those who pose as libertarians on slashdot would disagree with you.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
DEAR CAPITALIST PIGS!
FINALLY YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE PROLETARIAT.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN OTHER 49 STATES WHERE THIS ACTION NOT BLOCKED? I WILL TELL YOU FORTHCOMING:
THE RFID WILL BE IMPLANTED IN MANDATORY DIRECTION.
NEXT, THE WORKER WILL NO LONGER APPLY FOR JOBS BUT BE LEASED BY ID NUMBER FROM "MONSTER.COM"
(MONSTER IS CALLED THIS NAME BECAUSE IT IS CAPITALIST MONSTER.)
INSTEAD OF PAPER WORK HISTORY WHICH THE WORKER CONTROLS YOU WILL HAVE ELECTRONIC HISTORY IN YOUR BODY THAT THE CAPITALISTS CONTROL. INSTEAD OF JOB INTERVIEWS WITH NEGOTIATION, YOU WILL GO ONLY FOR AN RFID UPLOAD.
JOB OFFER WILL BE IN FORM OF SMS ONTO MONSTER.COM MOBILE TELEPHONE OWNED.
YOU ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE 1 STATE LEFT WITH WORKER FREEDOM, KALIFORNIA.
I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS BECAUSE OF VICINITY OF KALIFORNIA TO RUSSIA.
REST OF YOU CAN WEAR TIN FOIL - GO AHEAD, TRY TO BLOCK RFID FROM SPYING STATE.
ONLY IN SOVIET KALIFORNIA AND MOTHER RUSSIA, STATE BLOCKS RFID FROM USE AGAINST YOU BY CAPITALISTS.
FINALLY YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE WORKER.
BUT - AND THIS IS IMPORTANT TOO - THE WORKER MUST BE CONTROLLED BY THE WORKER.
SERGEI VLAGASCHONOVEVSKIVOV
would not be considered such by who? by egalitarian pseudo-democratic idealists, sure. But history has a long history of plutocracy! And modern conservatives often don't try very hard to hide that basis of their own bias... money is free speech, remember?
;)
I'll concede I have no idea of the history of libertarian thought.. I've only been involved with the modern counterparts.
I also make a habit of ignoring "founding fathers", since many of them had diametrically opposed ideals, it's hard to address them as a unified group
I think one of the reasons we (and the courts) talk about bodily sovreignty in terms of privacy is because of Griswold v. Connecticut, the contraception ruling that preceeded Roe v. Wade. There it was asserted that there's a "right to privacy" sort of hidden in the other rights. Anyway, since that strain of the law has ended up influencing lots of "hands of my body" laws, not only Roe, the "right to privacy" gets trotted out quite a bit when something similar shows up. I agree that it's a euphemism and not particularly clear, but we don't actually have a right to bodily integrity -- at least not one the courts have recognized? -- that's there for all to see and in that particular language.
Anyway, if I rewrote the thing, I'd put it in!
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Ok, seriously, when did Ayn Rand become the spokesman for Libertarianism? I'll take Milton Friedman over Ayn Rand any day. She makes statements that are provably logically inconsistent. This is all fun and good when trying to inspire a religion, but not when trying to establish a basis for a philosophy. My favorite phrase from Atlas Shrugged: "...and the two corollary axioms are..."
C'mon, you can't view her writing as anything more than self-help books. I won't even mention that her system of the world does not realize that looking from "outside" creates nihilism in those who are are not immediate actors in the whatever current form of progress happens to be. If you add in the fact that she has no concept of (and explicitly argues against) romantic love and scientific curiosity, you'll realize that rather than creating a model for society she creates a way to effectively structure one's life to being productive.
That being said, her argument against Robin Hood is absolutely beautiful. But that is soooooo far off the point that I am willing to welcome all the "troll" and "off-topic" tomatoes flying my way.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I am actually agreeing with a Democrat on an issue? Somehow the fabric of space / time is being ripped apart.
...we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy.
Really? The wireless equivalent of a bar code is the ultimate invasion of privacy? Not, say, ECHELON, or warrantless phone tapping, or a city filled with cameras? It's an RFID chip? Interesting. And all this time I thought the ultimate invasion of privacy would look more like a helmet cam. Silly me.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Not if they calm down, get a chance not go on defensive all the time and think it through. But when they constantly find themselves defending their right to sneeze without looking for a government permission, they do overreach in demanding how little the government intervenes.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Depends which founding fathers they cite, as well! If they go with Proudhon ("property is theft"), well, there's definitely something up. In many cases, the intellectual history of contemporary "Libertarian Party" libertarianism goes back to "liberalism" in the Enlightenment sense -- again, well before we really had the contemporary notions of the free market.
Adam Smith, by the way, was definitely not a free market ideologue, and "the invisible hand" as we currently understand it is very different from his version. His use of the term (only once) actually is sort of backwards from how we would understand it today. He uses it to explain why we shouldn't worry about domestic merchants going overseas for goods. Smith believes that this would be detrimental to society, but according to him, we don't have to worry about this happening because the invisible hand will lead the merchant to use local goods. He never addresses what would happen if the merchant's self interest led him, as happens today, to go overseas! A bit nitpicky, but interesting nonetheless.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Not really, no. Free market is about as viable as communism, and will certainly not fix the situation you describe.
In your particular example, once X gets large enough to outcompete or buy out Y, the game is over.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
So what happens if you go through an MRI scanner, and forget you've got
one of these puppies under your skin?
Seems like it'd be a bad idea to be around intense sources of RF,
strong microwave sources (with or without a candybar in your pocket),
alternating magnetic fields, close proximity to neodymium magnets..
I think the FDA indicated RFIDs are 'incompatible' with MRIs,
which brings to mind the smell of DVDs in microwaves, and TTL chips
roasting on wall current..
Think I'll tell the HR department I'll pass on those RFID implants,
and if that means my resignation, they can have that too.
Yes, because doing what anyone ever tells you to do is a sign of intelligence.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Everyone is caught up in this notion of "your body is your temple", and that, you have an inviolate right to your body, and, I'd argue that you don't. There's nothing that you do with your body that is without social consequence, from the food you eat, water you drink, the air you breath, and the waste you make. Really, the whole "it's my body" argument that women have when defining abortion rights or even the notion of "reproductive rights" is utterly laughable. The tribe ultimately has every right to boot you off the island and it certainly may control its breedings. It is only our comperitive wealth that allows us to ignore this, and, so, arguing absolutes about freedom in an ephemeral context will only doom us overall. At some point, we may need to legislate birth rates or even those who should be born, and organize humanity optimally for an even distribution of sexual activity.
This is my sig.
I certaintly don't advocate Ayn Rand as a philosopher! But she is the distillation of a very powerful idea/fanatasy. It's also important to have some idea of what she's saying becaus so many people -- including people in government (e.g., Greenspan was an acolyte -- believe very deeply in her parables. Friedman, by the way, was a Rand fan to a certain extent. By and large, the academic philosophical community has ignored Rand but I remember a famous old prof (was it Nozick?) did finally get sick of hearing about her and wrote a long debunking of the reasoning.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
What if they offer a 15% discount and allow you to walk in the shop take what you want and leave without ever having to stop (they bill you later), it would be a fantastic convenience, sure you might not like it but many other people would think its great. I'd bet that if one retail outlet started this then others would follow, the banks would love it as it prevents card fraud, (unless someone has stolen your implanted RFID, after all they will be so secure that they cant be cloned..). Soon enough it would be noted that if people have RFID's implanted for shopping, they could have them implanted for convenient access to the library, or other government project, it could replace your drivers license and any other ID, after all it would be really convenient.
Hmm scary, I doubt it would happen but you can spin anything to sound great to most people if you try, tell everyone else its just a trial, or its voluntary and your 99% of the way there.
Let's not forget that more people than you would imagine would consider this the same as the mark of the beast due to religious convictions and belief's.
No, but using extreme cases and fallacious logic can be indicative of a lack of intelligence.
Adam Smith also advocated that government should run certain services for the well-being of all :)
Ok, the alternative would actually be .. the company can't operate securely. Therefore, they will not be able to make as much money .. and be able to hire less workers.
... then what happens to your kids then .. not only are you jobless but the economy in general & quality of life in general will be crappy for them.
So then you are left in a jobless position ANYWAY -- PLUS the world is deprived of whatever service that company was offering
2+2=5
I love Big Brother.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I think it is far more likely that such a program would be adopted voluntarily. For instance stores could offer incesntives to chipped customers - give them a 10% discount, or design special speedy checkout lanes. They wouldn't get all of their customers this way, but they could probably get most of them to participate. Perhaps retailers could get together and design some sort of 'consumer chip' that could identify with multiple 'rewards programs'. We love our freedom in the U.S., if we do get dragged into a fascist style society, it will be with the illusion of greater freedom. "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.- Huey Long"
Umm.. Greenspan was not a political figure though. His job was to be distanced from politics and to just crunch the numbers. Well, that was the job of the establishment that he headed. It was always a fear that putting monetary controls in the hands of the government might yield to political pressures. Of course, with anyone appointed by the current administration no chance at being corrupt has been passed, so... they do just that... yield to political pressure http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&si d=ac5M2fUfn77U&refer=germany.
Again, off the point
The point being, of course, that economically Ayn Rand and Friedman were in sync. So it didn't particularly matter what Greenspan figured as his philosophy of life -- only how he calculated the most effective FED rate.
Again, I am not against what she has to say in spirit. Her heart is in the right place -- the world is bettered by those who try to better their own lives by being shrewd as long as they don't set out to do it at the expense of stealing from others... It's easy to argue with this image, of course, because these people are selfish and yet compassionate scoundrels. The ideal is full of controversy and these people are full of internal struggles and conflicts, but... it is the fact that they are human and they still manage to be disciplined enough to enrich themselves by creating rather than by fighting over what already exists that makes them better. Her romantic hero is worthy of admiration even though she makes him too flat. She just doesn't always make a compelling argument. I take an issue with her being given as the Libertarian icon. She is just not good enough -- that's all.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
What the hell was that? Either english is your second language or you REALY need to lay off the crack pipe.
So we dont even own our bodys? Whats next? a device to submit your thoughts? How many years until we dont own ourselves?
And if companies X, Y and Z agree together to all require them, and are the only companies reachable by you to buy eg. food, you're fucked. And a new company which *doesn't* support them won't appear overnight. Given the pure laziness of the general population, 99% of people would probably prefer an implant to an extra 5 minutes on their shopping trip.
Free market philosophy falls flat on its face when you introduce the real-world scenarios of monopolies, cartels, and other dirty practices.
If you don't want it then don't work there. If you feel strongly enough about it then don't buy their products. Capitalism will quickly filter out any irresponsible companies.
i agree.
and isn't it great how the free market ensures that corporations could never conspire against consumers or workers by agreeing to fix uniformly high prices, low wages or poor conditions?
Employees are not owned by their employers. If being employed means surrendering the sovereignty of your body to an employer by accepting an implant then this equates employees with cattle or sheep that are being tagged for identification before slaughter.
Circuit City is monopolistic? Really? I think there is fantastic competition right now in the home electronics world. In fact, it's one of the few industries where you can get great service and good prices (hi newegg.com). F
What if they offer a 15% discount and allow you to walk in the shop take what you want and leave without ever having to stop (they bill you later), it would be a fantastic convenience, sure you might not like it but many other people would think its great.
The beginnings of this are already in use, via customer loyalty cards and fingerprint swipe payment devices.
(unless someone has stolen your implanted RFID, after all they will be so secure that they cant be cloned..)
No need to clone the RIFD, someone just has to hack into the database.
The problem is, it doesn't work like that. If you give the rich and powerful enough unchecked power, freedom of choice is either (A) taken from you, because they make a deal, or (B) meaningless, as it went down a spiral where everyone does the same things.
As an example of the former, you can see the last centuries of Rome and the introduction of serfdom. The rich clique that formed the senate:
1. proclaimed themselves not subject to tax
2. raised taxes on everyone else, especially the free peasants (land was the most common pension for soldiers and recruitment incentive, so they eventually had quite a few) to support the ever increasing costs of warfare and the luxury in Rome
3. tried to fix prices _and_ devalue the coin, by law. There goes some of your freedom right there, as a free peasant or small landowner: they already tell you what your produce is worth, and it just became half of what you got for it last year.
4. when people started moving away as a result, they just forbade everyone to move, effectively turning all free peasants into serfs of the empire. In one fell swoop.
I'm sure those peasants still thought they have a choice before step 3. Unfortunately after step 4 it started going downhill fast, and eventually they were not only tied to the land and taxed, but had to work 3 days a week for the local noble too, and some 15 centuries later it had become 6 days a week and no land of their own at all. In some places (e.g., some Polish revolts were against that), serfs could not only be sold, but also rented by burghers, merchants, whatever. The long and painful slide from a free peasant class back to effective slavery, eh?
As a _probable_ example of the latter, well, you can learn a lot about what problems a society had, by the laws they give. That Moses forbade working on Sabbath on penalty of _death_, should tell you that they probably had a _major_ problem there. It also gives you the idea that probably nothing else worked, choice be damned.
At some point, even if you forbid by law to _require_ working on the Sabbath, people will just find weasel ways to require "volunteering" for it. (See the recent EA scandal.) So at some point your choice becomes picking one of X potential employers, all of which require it. You have a choice to take it or starve.
The death penalty on workers on Sabbath is, if you think about it, the ultimate way to stop asking for it right in its tracks. There is no reward someone can promise you, in exchange for maybe getting stoned to death, and no threat they could use to make anyone accept that. Maybe religion could work to motivate someone to go to death, but here religion is what forbade that in the first place. Basically it attacked the supply side of labour, not the demand side.
It makes me wonder how bad it had got, at the very least.
At any rate, sometimes you have to restrict people's "choice" to accept being kicked in the head, because otherwise it can very soon degenerate into something where you have no choice to refuse it.
Finally, don't get me wrong, I'm not against the rich or capitalism... as such. It's just that when one side has disproportionately more bargaining power and power to subvert the system, at some point you have to restrict what they can do with it. Otherwise, if left unchecked, they'll just figure out a way to turn everyone else into their serfs. See, the Romans again.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I don't know about your part of the world, but asking to check receipts is done on a daily basis in mine. There's nothing extreme about declining to show them, and any employee who has spent more than five minutes in training knows how to handle the situation properly. It's not like he ran through the store on fire and was upset they beat the flames out -- he did something completely normal and common that every retail company in the country sees on a daily basis -- he kept walking and declined to show his receipt.
I shudder to think how your heart would cope if you were ever faced with an actual extreme situation, like somebody wearing a brightly colored shirt or jaywalking.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
California has not blocked anything yet. The Governator has signed nothing and there is no new law.
"California legislature approves..." or something similar would have been much more appropriate.
Come on people, you can do better than this.
How many chips do you have?
Oh, 15 or so.
Dude, why so many?
For the stores I shop at.
Why not just one?
Uhm, there is some sort of incompatibility problem, you see. Something about something called Windows and Lunatix, I think? Something like that. I have the papers at home.
qz
I would be very hesitant to accept being "chipped" mostly from a privacy and civil rights angle. However, one angle about this that people might not be thinking about is bodily harm. Lets say I'm a network administrator for a company and I have a security RFID chip implanted in my arm. I have access to sensitive server rooms, and some criminals want to steal the company data. They've decided to use my access to steal it. Now, before, they could mug me, and take my ID card. Now, they need the implanted chip. How to get it? Well the simplest way would be to cut off my arm. Now they've got the chip, and they've got it fast. Do they care about me? Certainly not. Even if they don't cut off my arm, and instead, say, scoop out the chunk of skin on my arm to get the tag, they could still cause nerve or muscle damage leaving me with a disability. That's bad for me, and the company could even be liable for it by requiring me to have the chip implanted. I'd certainly prefer being mugged to loosing an arm, or having a chunk of it cut off. Something to think about ...
This should be unconstitutional. In Canada it sure would be.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Sad it is Earth. If it is Tattoonie, a small boy who builds pod racers in his sparetime will build a scanner for it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Deleted
I hope the cracking community tears this one apart.
This deserves to be made 100% useless.
The obvious response is to offer implantation along with the option to use an external RFID tranmitter with the provision that if you are ever on the premises with either someone elses transmitter or without your transmitter you are fired. You add another proviso that states if you are ever not in posession of your transmitter you are fired.
This is just another silly law. Here's a solution- don't work for a company that requires RFID tags. Can't find one- start one! I'm sure there are folks that would work for a little less money in order to retain personal freedom, so you could then crush the RFID'ing competition.
"There's nothing that you do with your body that is without social consequence, from the food you eat, water you drink, the air you breath, and the waste you make."
I agree with you to a point. You exceeded it. There's a difference between social consequences and physical consequences. If I'm a Rain Forest Indian, who's drinking his water, eating his food, breathing the air, and shitting wherever. It has absolutely NO effect on you over in the first world. And even over here the effects are in balance with the rest of nature. Remember cycle of life.
"Really, the whole "it's my body" argument that women have when defining abortion rights or even the notion of "reproductive rights" is utterly laughable."
Because "reproduction" by definition involves the right and responsabilities of TWO people that AFFECT each other.
"The tribe ultimately has every right to boot you off the island and it certainly may control its breedings. It is only our comperitive wealth that allows us to ignore this, and, so, arguing absolutes about freedom in an ephemeral context will only doom us overall. At some point, we may need to legislate birth rates or even those who should be born, and organize humanity optimally for an even distribution of sexual activity."
Only if one choses to be a member and partake of it. And even then society has limits on what it can and can't dictate. Remember majority rules usually don't work.
"What do you want?"
"Information"
"Who's side are you on?"
"That would be telling. We want information...information...information."
"You won't get it!"
"By hook or by crook, we will."
"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is number one?"
"You are Number Six."
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
(Laughter as Number Two demonstrates Number Six's identity with an RFID scanner)
I was referring to the post I replied to.
Sorry for the ambiguity, but it can be deduced. Which is extreme, checking receipts or "doing anything you're told"? Checking receipts is fairly common, "doing anything you're told" is pretty extreme - straight forward logic.
Hey - you didn't apply logic, used extreme examples, and even top it off with unwarranted sarcarsm! Maybe that's indicative of something!
it's about sovereignty of ones body. If it is forbidden on "privacy" grounds, then the privacy grounds can be addressed ...
I'll keep my body and my privacy, thank you. The privacy nullification of individual marking tags for clothes and credit cards is just as great as any other tag and that needs to be addressed. There's no good reason to treat everyone like a convicted felon and the practice should be outlawed.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
the excuse of using technology because "it's just easier this way" has in fact lead to atrocities that will be remembered for a thousand years.
Yes, it's now a "you are with us or against us" deal, where those who object will be economically marginalized and then eliminated. The goal is power and those pushing for RFID use already have too much of it. Surgical implants represent a low point of depravity, but the same ends can be had through "easier" inventory control and RealID. If you want to get scared, consider the prison camps now set up in all 50 states for "immigration control."
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
don't they?
I've absolutely no fear of this. If some draconian employer tried this crap, I would simply not do it, period.
Life style expectations can be reset.
Been there before anyway. It's not such a big deal. Actually, it is only as big of a deal as one thinks it is. So, you drive used cars, rent, don't have as many toys. Compensate with other activities and work really hard on allowing those things you possess define who you are and what your value is.
Blogging because I can...
I might welcome a RFID tag from an employer. That way they can watch me take a 30 minute shit, hang around the break areas on and off all day, and just jack off in general. Pretty soon they would figure out that they really do not want to know exactly where their employees are at all times. Even more entertaining that that is finding a way to disable the chip every couple of weeks so they have to pay to have it reimplanted each time. Then when they fire me, I can just go to somewhere else where the bosses aren't such dicks, secure in the knowledge that I warped and twisted the minds of my bosses at the last job.
surely if people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be RFID'd then that's their problem?
There's always someone smarter than you. Should the sharks who run Wall Street be allowed to screw everyone just because they're smarter and more ruthless than the vast majority of the population?
Also, what if your options were getting a job and therefore getting food on the table for your family, or getting tagged? You might not like it at all, but if your options are limited, you might just go along with it. We do things like that all the time; we put up with things we don't like, in order to get things we need.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
People would start wearing this both out of necessity and for fashion ;-)
No TiVo and no caffeine make me something something...
Libertarians of the first kind are invariably classists, or elitists who believe that people have "their place" in society, usually with them at the top and everyone "unworthy" at the bottom. They object not to government, but to democratic government that gives power to all the people, and not just "the right people".
Most Randian literature exalts the virtues of "independent" persons, who "inherit" their virtue from their "lineage" and upbringing. It's essentially a call for an aristocracy or oligarchy, usually hereditary, with the rest of us knowing our place.
I mean, if the bastards actually want fascism, they should just come right out and say so.
May the Maths Be with you!
Call this flamebait if you will - but isn't it about time that a paticular type of US management gave up on slavery. It isn't coming back and any efforts to own people in their own time should be stopped with the force of the law. Imported US management in my country in Australia is paticularly prone to this attitude - firing people for what they get up to in their own time and in a paticularly nasty twist of selective morality firing the woman and not the men she was with.
Yes, it's indicative of your own inability to deal with well-warranted sarcasm, if not outright scorn for being such a pliant pussy.
We already have it Mr AC. It's called "living from paycheck to paycheck".
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
The intelligence of it all - how could the authorities allow the use on humans in the first place?
The VeriChip tagline is "RFID for people" - why? - what absolute need does it serve?
http://www.verichipcorp.com/company.html
VeriChip hope to get veryrich by treating people like animals.
As to the pathetic excuses - surely, it is more humane to put a unremovable name bracelet on those with Alzheimer's disease.
And hasn't high security establishments been safe - without implanted RFID chips?
The line from Revelations talking about 'wearing the mark of the beast' or '...the mark of the lamb' is not a physical implant. It's about being a Christian...a true Christian, not just a church-goer and being saved, or not. There will come a time when being Christian is considered the most vile of all things....strange, for a people expressing peace, inclusion, and goodwill to others. "The AntiChrist" is a people, not a person. And there's sure a lot of them.
But as we speak, Christians are dying for the message of salvation all over. China comes to mind, Korea is holding Christian hostages. These people will rank high about the others in the next world; I don't have the guts to do as they do.
And as you watch the responses to this non-offending message and see the crap I get for mentioning the word Christ should also be an indicator...
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
How long until a tyrannical fascist government requires any newborn baby to be implanted with RFID or similar technology?
Erm, riiiight,
Just like we have plenty of Mom and Pop stores to buy from? The simple fact is that vast most people want to buy cheap and are willing to be inconvenienced to get cheap. In fact, that accounts for such a high proportion of the population that shops catering for any other segments of the population (e.g. knowledgeable service) struggle to survive. If you want something that is not what most people want, do not assume the free market will supply because economies of scale mean it frequently is not worth offering niche services.
It is fascinating if you sit down and work out what the average Joe will put up with and what he won't. People do not demand the cheapest - offering a burger for a few cents less won't cause hordes of people to beat down your doors, but they do demand cheap and if you consistantly cost more than the big players you'll have to really fight to survive. People also demand consistant far more than you'd expect, but they can be suckered into thinking two different things are much the same with a few weasle words.
I almost hate to point out any advantages, but an RFID can be replaced if it's compromised, unlike any biometric. And a bad guy probably doesn't have to kill you or amputate anything to steal it.
I'd still be happier with chip-and-pin, though. Put it in a medic alert bracelet if you think I'm to stupid to carry it around.
I don't get it. Why would they require you to have an RFID card? They already have a unique shopper token ID. Your credit card...
And I was told you suicided at the end of WWII in a Berliner bunker..?!
How's Eva [Braun] doing?
Pros:
1. The same as the national ID, which it would quickly become.
2. Locating someone lost. (Your kid in a mall, see what store they last walked into from the help desk)
3. Convenience. Be scanned just from standing close enough to the counter.
Cons:
1. The same as the national ID, the more that works based on this ID, the more a thief can take from you after copying it
2. Being located unwillingly. Divorcing a lost-their-mind abusive spouse who if they find you will likely kill you (if not seriously hurt you?) Better hope he doesn't have means to read the network, tracking what door in the city you last walked through. Chased by criminals? No chance of escaping them now if they have some sort of long range scanner that can track the position of your key, even if it can't completely read it) Criminals will see cops coming before the police can get anywhere near.
3. Convenience (of criminals)
If this can be easily read by stores, it can be easily read by criminals. Even if the criminal can't trigger your RFID to spit it's info, they just need to be nearby when it does. Being buried under the skin does NOT prevent the IMPORTANT part from being stolen, the ID the RFID spits out when asked to identify you. Your info will be duped without you knowing it. What's more, when your ID is stolen, you'll need more surgery to remove the tag, to replace it with another, that will be copied every bit as easily.
4. Unreasonable search (and seizure, but seizure doesn't matter here)
If this is made common enough, the government will require companies to share info. (Citizen 42 just passed the door 1 of McDonalds 43,543.) Just the idea of this should be horrifying enough, but the logical follow-up, the all-us-database-of-citizens-comings-and-goings will be populated with this info. This will be admitted as valid in any court case (but will, being fed from stores, NOT be reliable, allowing inside jobs by people with the power to tweak records to be easily blamed on customers).
5. Unneeded surgery.
Any unneeded surgery is a stupid idea. Possible infection, possible rejection reaction (or allergic). The surgery to remove a tag (when you swap jobs and the next employer wants ONLY their tag in you), when the company claims the tag is THEIRS and takes it out when you leave, suing you if you don't relenquish it willingly (through further unwanted surgery). Aren't doctors supposed to be forbidden from unneeded surgery? (Hippocratic Oath) You never know where something will go wrong. A friend lost his dog to an allergic reaction to the anesthesia. It's apparently rare, but happens. Who assumes liability? The company? The doc? The would-be employee?
6. Further unfair bargaining power in the hands of the employer
If the employer controls / owns the implant, can demand a recall at any time and is willing to use the threat of painful surgery to get their way with their employees, the employess may become far more pliable to mandatory unpaid overtime.
7. What does this thing DO?
If people learn to accept something that they're told just spits out a number for the company's scanner, accept it under their skin and don't ask questions, what's next? Listening / recording tags. Your every sound will be recorded to be used against you. They KNOW you're looking for another job... your disloyalty will be punished. Imagine when some nut orders the RFIDs with the "painful electric shock" add-on. Yes, this goes beyond what an RFID is, but once we're used to putting things into ourselves, we'll sign to have anything put in.
What does this do better than a security guard?
It's cheaper. It can't be bribed. (The security guard won't be as easily fooled as the RFID though.) If your company is considering this, consider the number of guards they currently have. That's an OK level of security, or they'ed have more. Consider the combined salaries of thouse guards. Let's say 30k and there's 3 of them. If your
I would NOT implant myself with an RFID chip and NOT get a 15% savings. I would buy less shit than the people around me. Wow. That was hard. I bet Orwell is rolling in his grave (isn't he still alive?).
This is what makes the terror of the market so laughable. The solution to pretty much all of these fears is to just go out and not buy something. Unless evil government storm troopers of d00m are lining people up to get their chips implanted, than you really and honestly have a choice. If you are willing to line up and get yours for a fucking iPod, that is your own damn fault.
Forget for a moment the simple fact that the notion is completely absurd when a company could just as easily offer you a 15% savings for swiping your loyalty card and get the exact same information without this pissed off customer. If some company was to absurdly demand you get implanted with an RFID tag, your response should be to not shop there. If lots of companies start demanding it, than you should probably think about opening up your own damn company and beating them into the ground with your "you don't need surgery to shop here" policy.
Corporations, especially ones that directly service consumers, are dreadfully easy to destroy. It doesn't take a government SWAT team, and it doesn't take a peasant rebellion. It just takes for people to not shop there for a few days. You could tank just about any consumer company in existence by getting everyone to just not buy their shit for a few days. If a corporation is manhandling you, especially one selling consumer goods, it is your own damn fault. If your manage to get yourself implanted with an RFID chip by a corporation you shop at, the company isn't acting evil, you are just a moron.
Tagging employees? Yet another reason so many US educated college graduates find work abroad. Too bad this law is not federal.
You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
Full-body tinfoil hat!
That's very insightful, but unfortunately, it's even worse than that. (If one can really say worse than the plague.)
1. Not for all. Eastern Europe, for example, was already sparsely populated enough that the plagues had no major impact. So there serfdom continued to be a downwards slide until the 19'th century. I've already given the example of Poland, but things got even worse in Russia, for example.
2. It took some very bloody revolts to really get a positive change, even with the plague. The ruling class didn't just start giving better salaries and conditions when western Europe depopulated. The first (and second and third) attempt again was to fix prices and try to force everyone to work more for less pay, so they can keep their luxury and privileges with less population.
As an example of it, in England and France which were having a jolly good 100 years war, the first effect of the population halving was that the levies on each peasant doubled.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I don't think implanted RFID tags will ever be popular either to employees or employers particularly in cultures that place some value on privacy and personal rights. (I understand the Air Force of Singapore recently placed an order with Applied Digital Solutions). But is this a problem for most of the free world? Can you imagine what it must be like to be a sales rep? "Say... do you need a microchip implanted at the base of your skull so we can track you in our database?" I just don't see the appeal.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I got a job for an American company HQ in *European country X*. The company called me to tell me to come back to the country after the permit approval process had been completed. I get back, oh, the permit hasn't ACTUALLY come through yet. So I'm an illegal immigrant suddenly, that doesn't feel comfortable. So I go find a hotel to stay in, the company doesn't forward any funds, I'm operating on my meagre savings, and I'm working illegally. Pay day comes around, still no PHYSICAL permit, so the company tells me I can't be paid.
... with one of those, I'd have been picked up at the hotel, at the shops, on the train, fuck knows where else, arrested, processed, imprisoned, deported ... no thanks.
I can't pay the hotel bill, so I tell my boss: You get HR to write me a CASH cheque, or I'm out of here today. Boss: I'll give you a personal loan. Me: You're not giving me shit, dude, you're getting off your arse and telling HR to do the right thing. I'm not going to be personally indebted to you because you AND the company fucked up royally. Boss gets HR to write the cheque(which is later deducted from my salary, although I'm still officially not working there), I go to the bank. Bank: You have no account here, we can not cash your cheque. Me: I want to open an account. Bank: You have no permit, and no residence, so piss off. (Note: I can't legally rent an apartment without a bank account or a permit). Back to the company. Me to HR: You get this fucking cheque cashed ASAP or I'm off to the federal police to denounce your illegal HR practices, cause I'm already an illegal alien and I have nothing left to lose. I finally get a few readies, and weeks later finally get my work permit (and a bank account with a supplementary letter from the company declaring me an employee), and months later finally get an apartment.
I was lucky that the local Police state doesn't actually police white collar "criminal activity" like mine was, but I was royally screwed for some time.
RFID implants
RFID is a stealth measure to make us all obedient sheep - if you don't stop it DEAD in it's tracks NOW, it's too late to change tomorrow.
And just like the current story about being arrested for not driving without a license, once it's on your "permanent record", you're fucked for life if you fuck with "the man".
Rule by hereditary aristocracy is not fascism. Fascism is essentially a form of government with extremely powerful state; aristocracy transfers most of this power to the aristocrats, making the two mutually exclusive. Unlike fascism, aristocracy - in the form of feudalism - proved to be a stable form of government, altought one plagued by constant small-scale warfare between various aristocrats.
Not that any of this makes it any less hideous to try to return to it, thought.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
That's somewhat inaccurate, though:
1. Roman "democracy" was by and large a democracy of the rich. When they voted on anything, the entire population of Rome was divided into 193 centuries, by economic class, and they voted by century. One vote per century. And 98 centuries were made of the senators and the equites. So they may have had a lot of poor, but the rich had the majority of votes by definition. Furthermore, voting stopped completely when they had a majority of 97 centuries either for or against, so quite routinely the poorest never had a chance to cast any vote.
That's democracy of the rich for you, seriously.
2. You have to remember that welfare and populism were limited to the city of Rome itself. No more, no less. If you wanted to vote to tax Egypt or the Gaul to hand out more bread in Rome, everyone would be for it.
Fixing prices for the peasants outside Rome to give cheap bread to the plebs in Rome would have been insanely popular at any point.
3. The only political office I can remember offhand that _required_ one to be a plebeian, was the Tribune Of The Plebs. The requirement seemed to be very flexible however. Remember that Octavian Augustus, among the many titles he accumulated in one hand as Imperator was also a Tribune Of The Plebs. If you can genuinely believe that he was a poor commoner, I have some logging rights to sell in Sahara. They were also routinely bribed by the rich.
4. The late Western Roman Empire was more... weird. Not everything you learned about the peak of the republic still applied. They had increasingly deranged emperors, the praetorian guard started installing and removing emperors itself, they had a _major_ civil war over who gets to be Augustus (emperor) and who gets to be Caesar (vice-emperor) in the tetrarchy, etc. Basically the Western Roman Empire in the 3-4th century AD isn't quite what you've learned about the Roman Republic.
5. Well, just because some people argue nonsense, it doesn't mean they can really rewrite history. What happened, well, already happened, whether the right-wing think-tanks like it or not. Plus, there are a lot of people who are disillusioned with the present and retreat in some rose-tinted illusion that the past was some gentle and noble utopia. (And I don't mean only in modern times, but also see the Renaissance.) Unfortunately, it never really was that great. Even more unfortunately, that sanitized illusion makes them easy to manipulate by those think-tanks I've already mentioned.
And yes, I'm not surprised that the rich in the USA, who want more political power for themselves, would try to paint it that way. "See, giving us more power is good, giving power to the poor is bad." It's only expected, I guess. Unfortunately that's not what actually happened in the real history.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
were to fall on our heads?
This shouldn't just prohibit compulsory rfid tagging, this should prohibit it outright. It's like anything else companies aren't allowed to ask you to do. Just because you don't have to do it doesn't mean anything. For example: the company can ask everyone to get tagged. Some do, some don't. The ones that don't don't get promoted or laid off. It's like it's illegal for company to ask employees to sleep with the boss. This state bill should just make implanted rfid's illegal to even ask an employee or allow it for a job.
* Mass communications subordinate to the government
It's no secret that the media is increasingly controlled by a few dominant business interests. Neither is it a secret that government is increasingly controlled by business interests.
* Television the major means of thought control
This has been true for as long as I can remember - television is for now, the most powerful mass-populace informational tool. In those areas where the media is controlled by business interests, television is the media they want to control the most. This could be why they hate internet radio so much.
* Population controlled by perpetual war and its attending material shortages
Raised oil prices have a knock-on effect on every aspect of the world economy. There's also outsourcing and automation, which could be viewed as a domestic kind of war against the workers of the Western nations. The beauty of these approaches versus full-scale conventional war is that it has all the advantages (creation of a new poor working class to repress, nice exploitation opportunities for companies) and few of the disadvantages (full-scale war disrupting the market for consumer products, risk of nuclear strike, etc).
* The war ends when the government says it does (i.e. - never)
Not only is "terrorism" a nebulous concept rather than a nation state, or a particular ethnic group, engaging in a war against it has the happy side effect that for each terrorist you squash, you are helping "them" to recruit more. It could last forever, and I suspect that could be the intent.
Now, is all this a conspiracy, or just emergent behaviour which is a natural outcome of capitalism? I think the latter. But whichever it is, the social system we have sucks for allowing it to happen.
But they don't need to implant RFID tags. All they need to do is sell you stuff that contains RFID tags. Eventually, everything you wear and everything else you carry will have at least one RFID tag in it. Then you can be accurately tracked by the average position of the cloud of RFID tags that surround you.
No-one is going to be chipping people en masse soon. Too obvious. They'll wait until everyone is RFID tagged in a de facto sense because of the number of RFID tagged items they have bought, and only then will the authorities introduce compulsory chipping "to protect the children" or "because of terrorists". And at that point, objecting to RFID tags will seem as pointless as objecting to compulsory ID cards in a world of credit cards and cell phones.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
I'll do my best to keep those who want to foist economic libertarianism on on the defensive, in discussions, in politics, and, if forced to, on the battle field.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
- You've got security cameras
- You've got badges
- You've probably got security personnel
- You don't have a ready-made public relations disaster
Wait --- that's it!!!-- E
You can't win that war individually.
If enough stupid people start implanting RFID chips on themselves, it will begin to be the norm. Soon enough it will become "socially acceptable", paving the way for legislation making it compulsory for everyone. There's your slippery slope.
You say: "if everyone stopped buying corporation X's products..." / "If everyone refused working for company Y...". But that can't happen for most values of X and Y. The fact is: most people just don't care about that kind of boycotts because they aren't as paranoid (in the healthy sense) as we on Slashdot are. They will happily buy at the X store, apply for a job at Y, and you won't be able to persuade a reasonable amount of them not to.
Widespread awareness of these issues is a requirement for your "plan for defeating the Orwellian nightmare". History tells us that most people don't become aware at all until it's too late to go back.
Score: i, Imaginary
And when you kills all those who feed you what will you eat?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
1. I think a question people are skipping over or assuming something more sinister is: why are they using RFID? Is it possible that there may be a very legit reason? I'm sure their are some companies that would use it in a negative fashion, but what if any legit reasons are there?
2. As I frequently see here, there are many people referencing their "rights". The problem is that everyone assumes they have all or any rights they imagine just because they can think of them, this is (un)fortunately incorrect.
While the Declaration of Independence may contain the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights", there are some distinct problems with this statement. Mainly this phrase can and has been interpreted differently, because if I recall correctly slavery was not abolished at the time of it's signing. (Yes I know it's because at the time they did not consider slaves "people", hence my point.) Second, they are assuming that the rights have a higher backing that enforces them, that would be God in this case.
However, while this is a nice example it doesn't matter since the Declaration is not a guide for government. That would be the Constitution, which conveniently has a section called the "Bill of Rights". Which in turn clearly outlines exactly what rights you have according to the US government, and heres the important part, that they will enforce.
So wtf am I babbling about? The ultimate point is that you only have the rights that a higher power (god/government/etc..) says you have, because they have the power to enforce those that disagree with you. So the important question is not whether you believe that you have these rights, but does the government believe? If you do not see the significance of this concept you have either: a. missed the point or b. take your place in life for granted.
"Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
Excellent movie, with a more believable outcome of the Human race....
Interesting point, but completely a red herring. If RFID is not the ultimate invasion of privacy, then it ranks just an insignificant smidge behind Echelon and warrantless phone tapping.
It's important, it's a huge invasion of privacy, and it should not be allowed. There should be a NATIONAL law, but having a state law is a step in the right direction. If a politician wants to use, what I consider, a small hyperbole to help get his point across, I have no problem since his cause is just. He's not even a national politician so he can't currently affect ECHELON or the wire tapping at the moment so it's not a matter that his priorities aren't straight. This is one hair that should remain unsplit.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Just because you're not being forced doesn't make it legal. Though hard-core libertarians make take offense at this, the law doesn't allow a whole range of "consensual" business arrangements, including:
sex for money
slavery
murder
full-time work for minors under a certain age (varies by location)
If legislators feel some activity is immoral on the face of it, they have the ability to make it illegal in the workplace.
No website, are they still in business or did something this controversial put them out?
Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?
Libertarians have never fed me. Don't confuse Atlas Shrugged with the real world.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
And what if your employer starts choosing to do RFID, and you cannot choose to leave the company because:
+ You would have to move to another city, and you can't due to family
+ You may need a work visa transfer
+ You can't leave the company because you would loose healthcare coverage
in the past, no wonder California is against them:l l_12.jpg
http://warehouse.carlh.com/article_079/total_reca
Sounds like the next big Hollywood movie. When does it come out?
That's because it frequently has nothing to do with well-considered politics, and everything to do with shouting "You can't tell me what to do! You're not the boss of me!!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Yes, get everybody pissed off about IMPLANTING said chips. Next week when the 'compromise' is rolled out nobody will say squat. The compromise will be that the chip is implanted in (e.g.) some article of clothing that is necessary for your job. It'll be implanted in your ID card, or some piece of non-optional clothing necessary for your job. The company will still get what it wants, which is to track you 100% of the time you're on the company premises. Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Libertarians have not. But the people that created that modern civilization have. It kind of funny that you would be the one to bring up Atlas Shrugged. Especially since you were the first to show the true hand of those who'd oppose the people of free will -- it's holding a gun.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG!!!
The Bill of Rights does not tell you what you can do; it tells the government what it cannot do. Believing otherwise is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.
Recognize that? It's the Ninth Amedment. In a nutshell, what it says is "just because it ain't listed here don't mean you can't do it." The Founding Fathers were very careful about this; this amendment makes it clear (or should) that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the citizens. It instead limits the rights of the government to interfere in the lives of the citizens.
That, above all else, is a fact I wish they would drill into students' heads in Civics or History classes.
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
It isn't about driving used cars, renting and having fewer toys, If you're already barely scraping by, and you decide to quit your job over an rfid implant, then you and your kids are going to starve if you don't find some form of income quickly. Not everybody has the privilege of just deciding to quit their job without fear of consequence. Or are you just suggesting that people should feel good about going on welfare because every employer in their area requires an RFID implant?
Maybe because the latter leads to a moderate position, not any particular extreme? There's usually four power groups to speak of:
1. The people
2. The government
3. The businesses
4. The press
Throwing out a rather idealized situation, then government regulates commerce and protects the workers, the businesses effectively provide goods and services the people want, the people choose their government and vote with their wallets and the press is the vigilant watchdog alerting the people of matters needing their attention. Killing the government to create plutocracy is no good, nor is killing business to create communism, killing the press would lead to massive corruption/collusion and killing the people would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Now, there's roughly two of these that can't holder power by themselves. One is the press - yes it can cover the truth rather than expose it, but it's a reporter not a doer. The other is the people itself, which is made up of individiuals. If the people organized themselves, it would be nothing other than the formation of a government-like structure, which would become a power player itself. You can look at unions, certainly they've done a lot of good for people but they've certainly had their own agenda as well. Ultimately the people can only control how it delegates its power.
With that line of reasoning killing the government makes no sense. The businesses would take over, the press could cry out but the votes wouldn't matter and big business would control the market and extort all the profits they want. Nor would you want to go the other way around. You like the free market with some regulation, not too much but also not too little. The only reason it looks libertarianish, is because the other three have basicly ganged up so that top government, top business and top media moguls go hand in hand. In that three-to-one tug of war towards lipservice democracy, even a moderate position looks liberal.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How do the people that created modern civilization suddenly come into this? Yeah, they have contributed to my feeding, but as you yourself say, they were not libertarians, and quite frequently in some way communitarian. I just don't get your train of thought here.
I brought up AS, probably needlessly, because of the recent "nerds are libertarians" story, where this came up frequently and people constantly confused the book and reality. Sorry if this confused our discussion.
Regarding free will and the gun, I think you're misunderstanding something. I don't (figuratively) oppose people of free will with a gun in had. I very clearly said what I oppose: libertarianism being forced onto me. You may not notice, but I have just as much a right to build, together with like-minded people, a society that I actually want to live in, as libertarians or other free market nuts have to theirs. This way of life certainly shares some characteristics with what libertarians want, but it also includes a large share of communitarian ideals and solidarity. This way of life already is constantly under pressure by corporatist interests and their unwitting stooges, the libertarians. I will certainly resist where possible, but I have no problem when the corporatists and libertarians stick to their free state in New Hampshire or something, as long as they leave me alone.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
this is the most mindblowing development... ever??? WTF
Sorry, but I do.
Grew up poor ass. Poor enough to value ordinary milk, glue my shoes instead of buying new ones, wondering what new clothes are like.
As an adult, I've quit more than one job over matters of ethics and principle. Once, it really cost me. Might cost me again.
I am suggesting people step up and act on what they believe. If that means moving, living with family, eating lean, etc... don't take it off the table.
In other words, don't fear your job situation, unless it's warranted.
In the case of the kids having to live less, I'm not sure I would weigh that above some principles. Too easy to be extorted.
If it's REALLY a case of STARVING, or perhaps a medical insurance lock-in issue, maybe it's better to get the damn thing and work hard to change things up ASAP.
You are right. Almost nobody gets to change without consequence. However, what consequences are show stoppers and or mandatory is a point of serious discussion. That was the intent behind my post.
Blogging because I can...
Dude, do you even realize that you're trying to tell someone who actually lives down here that you know better than him how his country works? Heh. It's like me telling one of your astronauts that I know better than him what riding a space shuttle is _really_ like. Geesh.
And really... the rich classes are for socialism? Heh. Well, I'm glad that they'd approve of the fact that here in Germany unions are officially given a lot of power and get a say in how corporations are run. I'm soo sure that if you took a random CEO from the USA, he'd be _totally_ for that. I'm sure your CEOs would also be _totally_ for excellent unemployment benefits, socialized medical care, very harsh anti-trust regulations, and all that other socialist stuff we do here.
I'm also sure they'd _totally_ be for the lower GINI index we have here, meaning, pay attention, that the rich make less money than in the USA (and pay more taxes, too) and the poor make more. Why, the biggest nightmare of the average USA CEO must be that he can't convince the politicians to take more of his money and give it to the poor. I'm sure they're lobbying for that day and night.
I just wonder why they in practice rant and rave against it, and pay think-tanks to attack that.
That was sarcasm, btw.
Lorded by the upper classes and used to it? Heh. Well, blimey, all those strikes and unions must be the workers trying to make their masters more powerful. I'm sure they're on strike to demand to be lorded over.
Heh. Dude, you just proved in one fell swoop that you have _zero_ clue how Europe works, you have _zero_ clue how socialism works, etc. I'm sorry, I wish I had something nice to say, but it's just so stupid I don't even know where to start. Learn how the world really works, lemming, before lecturing others abut how their country works. Hallucinations, propaganda falsehoods and Hollywood movies don't quite qualify as primary sources, you know.
And here's a parting idea: if you _really_ want to know why the economy changed in the 30's look up the Great Depression and Keynesian Economics some day. Might give you some actual data as to why those changes were necessary. And why the countries which spent more (e.g., the USA with its New Deal, or Germany with its rearmament) got out of the Great Depression fast, while those who stuck to lean mean government ideas (e.g., Canada) enjoyed a jolly good depression until the 40's.
_That_ is what happened in the 30's. Not some rich men's conspiracy to give some money to the poor, but just the fact that the old economy became no longer functional. If you drew two curves, (1) how much you produce vs production costs, and (2) how much you want to sell vs the price at which people will buy that much, the two just became _parallel_. Aggregate supply had just outstripped aggregate demand, and there was no price point or production value at which you could even break even. _That_ is why the economic model had to be patched, and fast.
I mean, again: if you're going to criticize something, be it the economic policy or other countries, it might help if you actually have any clue what you're criticizing. Attacking strawmen and bogus conspiracy theories is only funny so far.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
As soon as you set the rules of that society to be the rules of the land (ie, laws), you do force them on everyone else. So while libertarians won't object to you living in a community of willing community-oriented participants, you, by requirement communist (small caps intentional) rule of society, do force your way of society on libertarians. This is what makes libertarians the people who seek freedom and you a person who seeks tyranny.
This way of life already is constantly under pressure by corporatist interests and their unwitting stooges, the libertarians.Corporations do not establish (at least not towards the general public) any sort of power structure. In other words, they don't run your police department. Your interaction with corporations is entirely at your leisure. You have the option of not having the conveniences that they provide if you can make them yourself -- you don't have that option with the government. So arguing that corporations are too powerful is only honest when discussing their influence on politics (ie, matters of state). The fact that they are powerful in the marketplace only means that they are useful. Again, since you have the option of not using their services.
Having said this, I'll say what I've had to argue on slashdot all too much. Ayn Rand is a poor icon for libertarianism. So poor, in fact, that she is not one. She didn't find the movement. She was just one of its vocal groupies.
And even more so, I don't actually think that government that does not take care of education, monopoly regulation or environmental protection can be effective in safeguarding the people (which is government's primary mandate).
On a personal note, however, I don't believe you when you say
I don't (figuratively) oppose people of free will with a gun in had.Literally of figuratively, you are trying to impose your will on others. Such an interaction cannot be free. It has to be done by force. So, yeah, you are about an inch away from supporting a gun-enforced tyranny.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
...is what I've come to expect from legislators. They are generally quick to pass retrictive laws out of fear rather than undertaking the more courageous and challenging task of figuring out how to use new technologies to solve social problems. The human tendency to deceive and the human institution of privacy are a cause of many problems around the world. This technology, or technologies like it in the future, have great potential, if smart people would stop succumbing to fear and start thinking positively. I expect the worst from legislators, but I expected at least one person in this forum to propose a positive idea. More details here, at starbuckseverywhere.net/IrrationalityOfLaw.htm#Sep tember_3_2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm
:-)
All UK 'must be on DNA database'
The whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has said.
Comments please
Your claim that Rand "has no concept of (and explicitly argues against) romantic love and scientific curiosity" is typical of the outrageous lies about Rand that I've been hearing for 35 years. In particular, she wrote explicitly about romantic love.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
She did write about it. I read it. She was wrong. Her mistakes came from misconceptions (hence my claim of her having no concept). And her arguments were against it. The character who longs for love in Atlas Shrugged is James Taggart. She clearly paints his longing as an attempt to gain something undeserved. As if it were another act of destruction. But love need not be purchased with the "currency" of achievement. It can also be just a gift (which need not be purchased). This type of gift love is what most people dream about when they dream of romantic love... and what they promise with "for rich or for poor". Ayn Rand looked down on it. Without getting into an argument whether she was right or wrong, ethical or unethical, uncaring or meritorious, I am going to go ahead and say that I am simply trying to clarify what I meant by what I said.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.